Bartley v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia
DecidedSeptember 6, 2022
Docket1:19-cv-00155
StatusUnknown

This text of Bartley v. United States (Bartley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bartley v. United States, (N.D.W. Va. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

JOHN GLENN BARTLEY,

Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 1:19CV155 (Judge Keeley) Criminal Action No. 1:15CR18 v. (Judge Kleeh)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pending are (1) the pro se petition filed by John Glenn Bartley (“Bartley”) to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 216),1 and (2) Bartley’s motion for a separate claim of actual innocence (Dkt. No. 201). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Bartley’s petition and motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Prior Criminal Proceedings On February 3, 2015, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Bartley with two counts of Stalking, in violation of 18

1 All docket numbers refer to Criminal Action No. 1:15CR18 unless otherwise noted. BARTLEY v. UNITED STATES 1:19CV155/1:15CR18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

U.S.C. §§ 2261A(2)(B) and 2261(b)(5) (“Count One” and “Count Two”); Interstate Violation of a Protective Order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1) (“Count Three”); and another count of Stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(1)(B) and 2261(b)(5),(6) (“Count Four”) (Dkt. No. 5). Prior to trial, the Government filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony and exhibits related to a business dispute between Bartley and the victim in the case, Alicia Witt (“Witt”) (Dkt. No. 57). It argued that such evidence was irrelevant or, alternatively, unfairly prejudicial. Id. Bartley argued that evidence of the business dispute negated the mens rea element of his charged offenses, i.e., his intent to harass or intimidate Witt (Dkt. Nos. 61, 71). He contended that his actions were merely an attempt to regain control of his business (Dkt. Nos. 61, 71). At the final pretrial conference, the Court granted the Government’s motion (Dkt. Nos. 85, 158 at 19-29). Later, after further reviewing the relevant definitions of harassment and intimidation, it concluded that Bartley could testify about his business dispute with Witt and permitted Bartley to testify about 2 BARTLEY v. UNITED STATES 1:19CV155/1:15CR18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

the dispute solely for the purpose of negating his intent to harass or intimidate (Dkt. Nos. 111 at 8-10, 159 at 26-37). It prohibited detailed testimony about the civil litigation relating to Bartley and Witt’s business dispute, however, and also precluded hearsay testimony bolstering Bartley’s related claims. Id. at 34. Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Bartley on all counts (Dkt. No. 107). On December 9, 2016, the Court sentenced him to concurrent 60-month terms of imprisonment on each of Counts One, Two, and Four and a consecutive 11-month term of imprisonment on Count Three (Dkt. No. 145). The Court also imposed concurrent terms of three (3) years of supervised release on all counts. Id. On December 14, 2016, Bartley appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Dkt. No. 147), which appointed appellate counsel for him (Dkt. No. 151). On appeal, Bartley assigned the following four grounds as error: (1) the Court improperly admitted testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403; (2) the Court failed to instruct the jury on his definition of harassment; (3) the Court failed to dismiss Count Three based on insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction; 3 BARTLEY v. UNITED STATES 1:19CV155/1:15CR18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

and (4) the Court improperly departed upward one offense level under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3 for extreme psychological injury. On October 11, 2017, the Fourth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed Bartley’s conviction and sentence on all grounds (Dkt. Nos. 166, 167). B. Previous § 2255 Petition On January 9, 2019, the same day on which Bartley filed his pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 190), the Court issued a Notice of Deficient Pleading, which directed Bartley to re-file his petition on the court-approved form or risk dismissal of his case (Dkt. No. 191). Subsequently, on June 11, 2019, the Court ordered Bartley to show cause for his failure to re-file (Dkt. No. 200). Thereafter, on June 21, 2019, Bartley filed separate motions claiming actual innocence (Dkt. No. 201), and seeking a certificate of appealability (Dkt. No. 202). Then, on July 2, 2019, he responded to the Court’s show-cause order, stating that he had lost the court-approved form in the midst of medical treatment (Dkt. No. 205). The Court re-sent the court-approved form to 4 BARTLEY v. UNITED STATES 1:19CV155/1:15CR18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Bartley and gave him 30 days to re-file his petition (Dkt. No. 206). After Bartley failed to re-file, it dismissed his case without prejudice and denied as moot his motion for a certificate of appealability on August 6, 2019 (Dkt. No. 214). C. Instant § 2255 Petition Shortly thereafter, on August 12, 2019, Bartley filed a second pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 216), in which he alleges numerous claims against this Court, the Government, and his trial and appellate counsel. Since filing this petition, Bartley has submitted no less than thirty (30) supplemental documents that reiterate the same claims (Dkt. Nos. 220, 224-25, 229-47, 248-49, 250-53, 254-55, 260). Bartley’s claim of actual innocence, which remains pending, incorporates some of the same arguments alleged in his petition (Dkt. No. 201). Following a thorough review of the record, the Court understands the totality of Bartley’s claims to fall into four distinct categories: (1) actual innocence; (2) errors by the Court; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) ineffective assistance of 5 BARTLEY v. UNITED STATES 1:19CV155/1:15CR18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION [DKT. NO. 216], DENYING MOTION FOR ACTUAL INNOCENCE [DKT. NO. 201], DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

counsel. With respect to the first category, Bartley argues that newly discovered evidence establishes the Family Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, improperly entered a protective order against him in Civil Action No. 10DDV214 (Dkt. No. 201).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Petite v. United States
361 U.S. 529 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
United States v. Frady
456 U.S. 152 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Murray v. Carrier
477 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Herrera v. Collins
506 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court, 1993)
United States v. Dunnigan
507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Wilson
624 F.3d 640 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. MacDonald
641 F.3d 596 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Edward Donald Miller v. United States
261 F.2d 546 (Fourth Circuit, 1958)
George B. Petite v. United States
262 F.2d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 1959)
United States v. Jerry Dale Lowe
65 F.3d 1137 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Gregory Bartko
728 F.3d 327 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Calvin Dyess
730 F.3d 354 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
Hazel v. United States
303 F. Supp. 2d 753 (E.D. Virginia, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bartley v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartley-v-united-states-wvnd-2022.